Were our our country's founders right-wing extremists with regard to their desire for a very small and limited federal government? I would say yes. In fact I would say that is what made them distinctly American.

Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp

At 10/27/2011 7:57:10 PM, HandsOff wrote:Were our our country's founders right-wing extremists with regard to their desire for a very small and limited federal government? I would say yes. In fact I would say that is what made them distinctly American.

Right wing is traditionalismLeft wing is Reformism

Thus Right vs Left is Sociocultural

Statism vs Libertarianism is Sociopolitical

Socialism vs Capitalism is Socioeconomic

The founders were "Classic Liberals", or in today's terms "Libertarians"

They were also Capitalists

Prior to the revolution they were Left Wing, and after they were Right Wing.

"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle

At 10/27/2011 7:57:10 PM, HandsOff wrote:Were our our country's founders right-wing extremists with regard to their desire for a very small and limited federal government? I would say yes. In fact I would say that is what made them distinctly American.

It depends on your definition of right term. Some define right and left as tradition upholding versus supporting extreme change. In that sense they would have been extreme leftists.

At 10/27/2011 7:57:10 PM, HandsOff wrote:Were our our country's founders right-wing extremists with regard to their desire for a very small and limited federal government? I would say yes. In fact I would say that is what made them distinctly American.

Right wing is traditionalismLeft wing is Reformism

Thus Right vs Left is Sociocultural

Statism vs Libertarianism is Sociopolitical

Socialism vs Capitalism is Socioeconomic

The founders were "Classic Liberals", or in today's terms "Libertarians"

They were also Capitalists

Prior to the revolution they were Left Wing, and after they were Right Wing.

lol small and limited government is just a republican ploy to mask the REAL problem. I don't care how large the government is, how much it regulates and spends, so long as it does so correctly and fairly. The government is the servant of the people, the government is my servant, and when I give it taxes and military and power, I expect it to work for ME and do only what is in MY interest (I speak for the majority of America of course). In that regard, a massive government can be a great thing, so long as it is clarified that the government cannot stray from the desires of the nation like conservative idiots believe it should.

Yes, this includes such acts as assisting struggling college students with loans and debts, and giving social security and welfare.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 10/27/2011 9:24:35 PM, 000ike wrote:The government is the servant of the people, the government is my servant, and when I give it taxes and military and power, I expect it to work for ME and do only what is in MY interest (I speak for the majority of America of course).

Ahh to be young again.....

I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.

At 10/27/2011 9:24:35 PM, 000ike wrote:lol small and limited government is just a republican ploy to mask the REAL problem.

The OP regards the original founders intentions, not anything about Republicans.

I don't care how large the government is, how much it regulates and spends, so long as it does so correctly and fairly.

This is the kind of thing that makes me fear forthe future of humanity.

The government is the servant of the people, the government is my servant, and when I give it taxes and military and power, I expect it to work for ME and do only what is in MY interest (I speak for the majority of America of course).

Give the government taxes? You mean when they rake them right?

In that regard, a massive government can be a great thing, so long as it is clarified that the government cannot stray from the desires of the nation like conservative idiots believe it should.

Lol I'm no conservative but both conservatives and liberals hold extremely similar views. They btw think we should have a large and totalidarian government, they just don't agree on the purpose. Conservatives think the government should suppress our rights to defend national security while you liberals think our rights should be suppressed so that some guy I've never met can get subsidized for being poor. Two sides of the sme coin.

Yes, this includes such acts as assisting struggling college students with loans and debts, and giving social security and welfare.

And it doesn't matter that the government doing this causes college rates for everyone else to go up, to artificially boost healthcare prices for everyone else, and to force everyone to pay into a fatally flawed and on the verge of breaking, ponzi scheme, so long as those who benefit from it outnumber those who are hurt?

At 10/27/2011 9:24:35 PM, 000ike wrote:lol small and limited government is just a republican ploy to mask the REAL problem. I don't care how large the government is, how much it regulates and spends, so long as it does so correctly and fairly. The government is the servant of the people, the government is my servant, and when I give it taxes and military and power, I expect it to work for ME and do only what is in MY interest (I speak for the majority of America of course). In that regard, a massive government can be a great thing, so long as it is clarified that the government cannot stray from the desires of the nation like conservative idiots believe it should.

Yes, this includes such acts as assisting struggling college students with loans and debts, and giving social security and welfare.

Why does that struggling college student deserve the loan from the government? Shouldn't the student be striving for scholarships or getting the loans from private banks? The government doesn't need to do it. Hell, you should feel lucky you even have the option to go to college. Most people couldn't go to college throughout most of our history. Social security needs to be run better. Personally, I'd prefer to save my money and invest it myself. And why should welfare be a big priority. A large portion of people that receive it are just lazy. I can clearly see how we conservatives are the stupid ones. We value hard work and a productive life that benefits the other hardworking people while you liberals would prefer that all the skilled people work to pay for the rest of the country, and some other countries, to sit around and be parasites.

At 10/27/2011 9:24:35 PM, 000ike wrote:lol small and limited government is just a republican ploy to mask the REAL problem. I don't care how large the government is, how much it regulates and spends, so long as it does so correctly and fairly. The government is the servant of the people, the government is my servant, and when I give it taxes and military and power, I expect it to work for ME and do only what is in MY interest (I speak for the majority of America of course). In that regard, a massive government can be a great thing, so long as it is clarified that the government cannot stray from the desires of the nation like conservative idiots believe it should.

Yes, this includes such acts as assisting struggling college students with loans and debts, and giving social security and welfare.

Why does that struggling college student deserve the loan from the government? Shouldn't the student be striving for scholarships or getting the loans from private banks? The government doesn't need to do it. Hell, you should feel lucky you even have the option to go to college. Most people couldn't go to college throughout most of our history. Social security needs to be run better. Personally, I'd prefer to save my money and invest it myself.

With you so far.

And why should welfare be a big priority. A large portion of people that receive it are just lazy. I can clearly see how we conservatives are the stupid ones. We value hard work and a productive life that benefits the other hardworking people while you liberals would prefer that all the skilled people work to pay for the rest of the country, and some other countries, to sit around and be parasites.

I generally agree since I'm con welfare anyways but for seemingly different reasons. You are against it because it goes against a hard working ethic, though it doesn't do much to disprove why we shouldn't have welfare to strictly help the genuinely disadvantaged. Welfare in the conservative opinion seems like it could be saved while the libertarian opposes it wholly for reasons of forced appropriation of non-criminally obtained wealth to go to others who have done nothing to deserve it other than being less well off. The libertarian view is grounded in property rights while the conservative view is grounded in a Protestant-esqe "hard work is more important than laziness" view.

At 10/27/2011 9:24:35 PM, 000ike wrote:lol small and limited government is just a republican ploy to mask the REAL problem. I don't care how large the government is, how much it regulates and spends, so long as it does so correctly and fairly.

Okay for government to spend all it wants as long is it is correctly and fairly. So you believe in a balanced budget so as not to unfairly burden future generation with our consumption. Welcome to fiscal conservatism.

At 10/27/2011 9:24:35 PM, 000ike wrote:lol small and limited government is just a republican ploy to mask the REAL problem. I don't care how large the government is, how much it regulates and spends, so long as it does so correctly and fairly.

Okay for government to spend all it wants as long is it is correctly and fairly. So you believe in a balanced budget so as not to unfairly burden future generation with our consumption. Welcome to fiscal conservatism.

You can still have a 100% tax rate and not create a debt.

There's technically nothing wrong with debt that creates economic growth. Businesses take debt all the time in order to expect a return on investment.

At 10/27/2011 7:57:10 PM, HandsOff wrote:Were our our country's founders right-wing extremists with regard to their desire for a very small and limited federal government? I would say yes. In fact I would say that is what made them distinctly American.

No. In fact, I would say that our founders were a diverse group of people that disagreed on a great deal of topics (including the powers and limitations of the federal government). As a group they defy such simplistic classification, save for the most trivial and tautological.

The view of our founders as this powerful, unified group of fighters and thinkers that banded together and forged this nation is romantic. The foundation of this country was a difficult and tenuous compromise made possible through the existence of a lingering threat which temporarily unified them.

At 10/27/2011 7:57:10 PM, HandsOff wrote:Were our our country's founders right-wing extremists with regard to their desire for a very small and limited federal government? I would say yes. In fact I would say that is what made them distinctly American.

No. In fact, I would say that our founders were a diverse group of people that disagreed on a great deal of topics (including the powers and limitations of the federal government).

How do you reconcile that statement with the fact they the founders unanimously adopted a document written almost exclusively to limit the powers of the federal government? The authors of the Constitution were so emphatic in their distrust of government. They'd easily be labeled somewhere between libertarians and anarchists today.

At 10/27/2011 7:57:10 PM, HandsOff wrote:Were our our country's founders right-wing extremists with regard to their desire for a very small and limited federal government? I would say yes. In fact I would say that is what made them distinctly American.

No. In fact, I would say that our founders were a diverse group of people that disagreed on a great deal of topics (including the powers and limitations of the federal government).

How do you reconcile that statement with the fact they the founders unanimously adopted a document written almost exclusively to limit the powers of the federal government? The authors of the Constitution were so emphatic in their distrust of government. They'd easily be labeled somewhere between libertarians and anarchists today.

First, unanimous acceptance does not mean unanimous and complete agreement.

Second, unanimous acceptance of the Constitution only exists at the level of the State. That is, all of the States, supported ratification of the Constitution. However, that decision was made by constitutional deputies for each state and the state-by-state votes were most decidedly not unanimous.

Third, if we continue this conversation, we're going to get into the sticky issue of who constitutes a "founder." However, people like Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and George Mason are considered to be among this group, but they opposed the Constitution.

At 10/27/2011 7:57:10 PM, HandsOff wrote:Were our our country's founders right-wing extremists with regard to their desire for a very small and limited federal government? I would say yes. In fact I would say that is what made them distinctly American.

No. In fact, I would say that our founders were a diverse group of people that disagreed on a great deal of topics (including the powers and limitations of the federal government).

How do you reconcile that statement with the fact they the founders unanimously adopted a document written almost exclusively to limit the powers of the federal government? The authors of the Constitution were so emphatic in their distrust of government. They'd easily be labeled somewhere between libertarians and anarchists today.

First, unanimous acceptance does not mean unanimous and complete agreement.

Second, unanimous acceptance of the Constitution only exists at the level of the State. That is, all of the States, supported ratification of the Constitution. However, that decision was made by constitutional deputies for each state and the state-by-state votes were most decidedly not unanimous.

Third, if we continue this conversation, we're going to get into the sticky issue of who constitutes a "founder." However, people like Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and George Mason are considered to be among this group, but they opposed the Constitution.